:-(
A former member
Sad fact there NEED To cut cost big time!
DV
I think people are looking from a UK centric point of view. The Eurovision SC is strong enough to survive in it's current format, the changes made with this years rehersals suited the broadcasters and despite three departures it went off well.
Numbers will increase again as the continent emerges from recession. Indeed there is very likely to be a newcomer next year. 1FLTV are to join the EBU later this year.
There really is no alternative to the existing structure without imperiling the inclusive nature of the show.
The Der Speigel article was written in black terms. Today however Government interest in Germany in supporting the contest has been expressed.
Numbers will increase again as the continent emerges from recession. Indeed there is very likely to be a newcomer next year. 1FLTV are to join the EBU later this year.
There really is no alternative to the existing structure without imperiling the inclusive nature of the show.
The Der Speigel article was written in black terms. Today however Government interest in Germany in supporting the contest has been expressed.
GO
But your idea would increase costs significantly. How would a totally different stage in a different studio be cheaper than utilising a stage which will used anyway a few days later?!
I think governments should really stump up some of the cost (especially those whose broadcasters are state run) since the money brought in by added tourism over those two weeks and beyond would surely bring in more money than the contest costs to produce. In Kiev in 2005 they had to set up a temporary campsite in the city after they ran out of hotel rooms. In 2007 the Helsinki tourist board said that there had been a 30% increase in visitors in the months after the contest had taken place. Effectively it's a mini Olympics and if they did it properly I'm sure they could profit even in financial turmoil like this.
Sad fact there NEED To cut cost big time!
But your idea would increase costs significantly. How would a totally different stage in a different studio be cheaper than utilising a stage which will used anyway a few days later?!
I think governments should really stump up some of the cost (especially those whose broadcasters are state run) since the money brought in by added tourism over those two weeks and beyond would surely bring in more money than the contest costs to produce. In Kiev in 2005 they had to set up a temporary campsite in the city after they ran out of hotel rooms. In 2007 the Helsinki tourist board said that there had been a 30% increase in visitors in the months after the contest had taken place. Effectively it's a mini Olympics and if they did it properly I'm sure they could profit even in financial turmoil like this.
NG
That wouldn't be cheaper.
The cost of the show isn't purely the TV aspect - it's the number of contestants and delegations, and the facilities they require.
You can't really scale down the final - so using the same set for the two semi-finals makes MORE financial sense than having two venues, two sets, two production teams etc.
noggin
Founding member
I think its time that the Two semis, get cut right back. A X factor type show would still do the semis justice and with it in a tv studio and have 3000 people only, that would cuts cost right down.
That wouldn't be cheaper.
The cost of the show isn't purely the TV aspect - it's the number of contestants and delegations, and the facilities they require.
You can't really scale down the final - so using the same set for the two semi-finals makes MORE financial sense than having two venues, two sets, two production teams etc.
NG
But your idea would increase costs significantly. How would a totally different stage in a different studio be cheaper than utilising a stage which will used anyway a few days later?!
I think governments should really stump up some of the cost (especially those whose broadcasters are state run) since the money brought in by added tourism over those two weeks and beyond would surely bring in more money than the contest costs to produce. In Kiev in 2005 they had to set up a temporary campsite in the city after they ran out of hotel rooms. In 2007 the Helsinki tourist board said that there had been a 30% increase in visitors in the months after the contest had taken place. Effectively it's a mini Olympics and if they did it properly I'm sure they could profit even in financial turmoil like this.
To be fair - Kiev had issues because they'd had the Orange Revolution between winning and hosting. They were also hit by at least one of the major hotels that was built having its license to operate not granted in time. (Meaning the EBU (apparently) had to fund the UK and Greek delegations staying in a VERY nice hotel. Believe me - it WAS very nice!)
noggin
Founding member
Sad fact there NEED To cut cost big time!
But your idea would increase costs significantly. How would a totally different stage in a different studio be cheaper than utilising a stage which will used anyway a few days later?!
I think governments should really stump up some of the cost (especially those whose broadcasters are state run) since the money brought in by added tourism over those two weeks and beyond would surely bring in more money than the contest costs to produce. In Kiev in 2005 they had to set up a temporary campsite in the city after they ran out of hotel rooms. In 2007 the Helsinki tourist board said that there had been a 30% increase in visitors in the months after the contest had taken place. Effectively it's a mini Olympics and if they did it properly I'm sure they could profit even in financial turmoil like this.
To be fair - Kiev had issues because they'd had the Orange Revolution between winning and hosting. They were also hit by at least one of the major hotels that was built having its license to operate not granted in time. (Meaning the EBU (apparently) had to fund the UK and Greek delegations staying in a VERY nice hotel. Believe me - it WAS very nice!)
:-(
A former member
Its a shame there can't get a Company to sponsor it, saying that I think most other countries could show the branding the BBC Would have a fit!
GO
They do have companies sponsoring it, many companies in fact. This year the contest had an official airline and in most countries the Telenor logo would appear during the voting.
Its a shame there can't get a Company to sponsor it, saying that I think most other countries could show the branding the BBC Would have a fit!
They do have companies sponsoring it, many companies in fact. This year the contest had an official airline and in most countries the Telenor logo would appear during the voting.
IS
My point was more about the scaling back of the set up that produces the shows. Do they need that big an auditorium? Do they need that many production staff? Does the production need to be so grand? It does seem that for the past few years every host has tried to usurp the previous one by doing everything bigger and better... but that can only go on so far. Norway did buck that trend somewhat, it was a much simpler affair than Moscow 2009 but it could go a lot further
The contests in the 90's (think of the ones at the NEC and Millstreet) were just as good but didn't cost as much, I'm sure doing the same scale of contest today would be a lot cheaper even taking into account the 2 semi finals and the extra delegations.
Yes, I'm sure that Liechtenstein's TV channel will add a lot of the EBU and ESC coffers! 
I think people are looking from a UK centric point of view. The Eurovision SC is strong enough to survive in it's current format, the changes made with this years rehersals suited the broadcasters and despite three departures it went off well.
There really is no alternative to the existing structure without imperiling the inclusive nature of the show.
The Der Speigel article was written in black terms. Today however Government interest in Germany in supporting the contest has been expressed.
There really is no alternative to the existing structure without imperiling the inclusive nature of the show.
The Der Speigel article was written in black terms. Today however Government interest in Germany in supporting the contest has been expressed.
My point was more about the scaling back of the set up that produces the shows. Do they need that big an auditorium? Do they need that many production staff? Does the production need to be so grand? It does seem that for the past few years every host has tried to usurp the previous one by doing everything bigger and better... but that can only go on so far. Norway did buck that trend somewhat, it was a much simpler affair than Moscow 2009 but it could go a lot further
The contests in the 90's (think of the ones at the NEC and Millstreet) were just as good but didn't cost as much, I'm sure doing the same scale of contest today would be a lot cheaper even taking into account the 2 semi finals and the extra delegations.
Quote:
Numbers will increase again as the continent emerges from recession. Indeed there is very likely to be a newcomer next year. 1FLTV are to join the EBU later this year.
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 4 June 2010 1:10am
GO
It's a very rich, nearly autocratic, country of old-people. Do you think they can spear a few Billion Euros
Yes, I'm sure that Liechtenstein's TV channel will add a lot of the EBU and ESC coffers!
It's a very rich, nearly autocratic, country of old-people. Do you think they can spear a few Billion Euros
NG
The way they do now - in sponsorship terms. Many sponsors have invested money in sponsoring Eurovision (and some of the national pre-selection shows) in return for an association with the contest, which they believe will bring them a commercial benefit. The BBC have historically had to opt-out of the closing credits early when sponsors have been named on them.
Areas of sponsorship include scoring systems, cosmetics, haircare (and in some cases provision of hair stylists), and many others.
However this already takes place - it isn't something new...
noggin
Founding member
How could someone invest in Eurovision?
The way they do now - in sponsorship terms. Many sponsors have invested money in sponsoring Eurovision (and some of the national pre-selection shows) in return for an association with the contest, which they believe will bring them a commercial benefit. The BBC have historically had to opt-out of the closing credits early when sponsors have been named on them.
Areas of sponsorship include scoring systems, cosmetics, haircare (and in some cases provision of hair stylists), and many others.
However this already takes place - it isn't something new...
BR
I think the question is whether the burden of the cost of hosting should fall with the hosts or the broadcasters - and the EBU - by spreading the cost through a (probably dramatic) increase of fees.
We always here a lot about how much the Eurovision costs, but never here much about how much it generates through fees to enter, broadcast rights sold and tickets and other merchandise sold.
We always here a lot about how much the Eurovision costs, but never here much about how much it generates through fees to enter, broadcast rights sold and tickets and other merchandise sold.